Some Democrats Want Ben Wikler to Run the DNC. Watch His Answer. ⁠69%

By Sam Stein⁠91%

7/14/2026, 11:50:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Biased Writer Voice, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 42.1% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 283 faulty-reasoning hits from 107 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (6,535 of 20,496 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.10% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein speaks with Ben Wikler, former chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, about why Trump is not the main character for many voters, how groceries, gas prices, roads, and local relationships shape elections, and his plan for rebuilding Democratic power from the ground up. 
Buy Ben's book, "This Is The Plan: How to End America's Meltdown and Save Democracy" - https://www.amazon.com/This-Plan-Americas-Meltdown-Democracy/dp/1324131438 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.1%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias42.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.3%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Sam Stein: 16.4%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 42.1%Sam Stein: 28.8%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias42.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.4%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 42.1%Sam Stein: 2.5%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma42.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 9.0%The Bulwark: 8.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 5.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 42.1%Sam Stein: 24.1%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice42.1%This article: 10.3%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination10.3%This article: 42.1%Sam Stein: 14.2%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias42.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.2%Sam Stein: 24.8%The Bulwark: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…25.2%

107 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers56%attributed speech47writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageSam Stein • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ Takes • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Stein

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words75% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sam Stein: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sam Stein: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -57.4 ptsWriter: 57.4%Sam Stein: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-23.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%Sam Stein: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.